A/HRC/55/51 model that seeks equal participation by recognizing and accommodating differences.12 It is naturally very positive that the realization of the dual dimension of the principle of nondiscrimination is now fully apparent to States but, as emphasized above, the inadequate nature of the sole negative dimension of non-discrimination in ensuring the effective enjoyment of all human rights by persons belonging to minority groups was already understood by the General Assembly in 1948. That makes the implementation of universal human rights for persons belonging to minorities complex and delicate, because genuinely recognizing and implementing minority rights involves managing differentiation (minority rights) within the diversity of States’ national legal systems. That is why the implementation of human rights of persons belonging to a minority is not only complex and delicate, but also specific. 29. As an illustration of the negative outcome resulting from limiting the right to nondiscrimination to solely negative obligations in relation to equal treatment for all, including persons belonging to a minority group, a recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights may be illustrative. In its judgment of 16 November 2023, in the case of Džibuti and others v. Latvia,13 the European Court of Human Rights, basing itself on the sole negative dimension of the right to non-discrimination in the enjoyment of the human rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), was led to approve a blatantly discriminatory situation as regards the enjoyment of the right to education of persons belonging to a minority group. In the case under review, the applicants complained that, as a consequence of the 2018 reform of the Education Law of Latvia, “the proportion of subjects to be taught in the State language, that is, Latvian, was increased in private schools and the use of Russian as the language of instruction was consequently reduced”.14 Among other claims, the applicants considered that the 2018 reform had a discriminatory impact on pupils whose mother tongue was Russian and, consequently, their right to education as enshrined in article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights,15 taken alone and in conjunction with article 14 of the same Convention,16 had been violated. Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a clear provision prohibiting discrimination, but only in its negative form. As the Court noted: Depending on the context in which Article 14 has been invoked, the Court may examine allegations of discrimination from different angles. On the one hand, it can be argued that the State has a positive obligation to treat different groups of pupils differently chiefly on the grounds of the fact that their mother tongue is different. On the other hand, it can be argued that all pupils – irrespective of their mother tongue – are in relevantly similar situation insofar as they wish to have access to education in a particular country. While those aspects are so intertwined one could say that they are two sides of the same coin, the Court considers that the present case has to be examined from the latter perspective, that is (to say), from the perspective of the right to have access to education system in Latvia as a whole given that neither domestic law affords particular status to any other language than the Latvian language, nor the Convention contains a specific provision on the rights of minorities and the applicants rely on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 – which does not include the right to access education in a particular language – taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.17 12 13 14 15 16 17 GE.24-00944 Ibid., p. xxii. European Court of Human Rights, Džibuti and others v. Latvia, Applications Nos. 225/20, 11642/20 and 21815/20, Judgment, 16 November 2023. Ibid., para. 1. Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights reads as follows: “No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights reads as follows: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” Džibuti and others v. Latvia, para. 131. 7